That’s at least more three non sequiturs.
WOW… from neuron’s firing. Must have incredible chemical balances then.
What else? Magic?
An intelligent source outside of the physical/ creation.
Whether we want to call it a creation or a simulation it doesn’t make much difference. The evidence points to information being the basic foundation of matter and energy.
So magic then. Does our reasoning for us. Or we couldn’t reason without it. Simulating what?
There is nothing magic about it. We are conscious beings able to perceive, call up and utilize the information in The Mind (of God) and the meanings or rules that govern that information.
Physicists want to call the physical reality a simulation. This is really no different to calling it a creation. The only difference is that physicists insist that the information that give rise to matter and energy is physical. IMO this is absurd. In a creation the information is non-physical/ ideas that are upheld in the Divine Consciousness, together with meaning/rules, that brings into being the creation or physical reality.
Then explain the physical process of consciousness.
Do you have evidence for these claims?
Wouldn’t the conversation be of more benefit and have a better foundation, if people would use scripture as a bases of their opinion? Since the only opinion in the end that matters is the Father’s and Jesus. In Christ is all understanding and wisdom.
1 Cor 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.
I don’t know how to do two quotes so I put them together.
Consciousness is not a physical process of any sort. This is why scientists treat it as “the hard problem”. There are some scientists that are trying to explain it in various ways but they don’t show anything of any substance.
You are trying to say that if you can’t explain something in physical terms then it is magic. By that reasoning subjective experience is magic. There is no experiment that can be done in science that show or proves that another person has any subjective experience. When they say they enjoy the sun rise or the full moon etc., we cannot scientifically say that they do or do not. So it’s magic???
The evidence I have about creation is not scientific so I can’t share it. There is some evidence of sorts in quantum physics. For instance two entangled particles are “aware” in some sense of each other’s state. If you make an observation/ measurement of one it will assume that state and the other entangled particle will assume the other related state. So for argument’s sake if the entangled particles had both concurrently a blue and yellow color, then if you observe one and set up your experiment as to see a blue color, then instantly the other particle will assume a yellow color. I am using blue and yellow to try and simplify say an up and down spin property.
The only way this can be explained is if there is a non-physical reality, the realm of information, in which the two particles, while entangled, are defined by a common information set. If you observe one then that information set is changed/ modified so that it no longer defines both particles. There will hence forth be two information sets, each of which define one particle. This is decoherence.
Another piece of information is the two slit experiment. I don’t agree that consciousness makes the difference. When we set up our experiment to see an electron go through the slit we are setting conditions that affect information in the non-physical realm (The Mind).
An electron will go through both slits if there is no observation but go through one slit, which ever one has the detector looking at it. Some are trying to make a case for the detector having an effect. I don’t think their reasoning is valid. So without the detector we see a wave pattern (interference fringes) when each electron goes through both slits as a wave. And with the detector we see dots forming opposite the two slits depending on which slit the electron as a particle went through.
1 Like
If subjective experience is a function of the physical brain then the explanation is the physical processes of the brain. You are saying that this isn’t the process, so what is it? How does it work?
Why does it require a non-physical reality?
[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:130, topic:43464”]
If subjective experience is a function of the physical brain then the explanation is the physical processes of the brain. You are saying that this isn’t the process, so what is it? How does it work? [/quote]
You can measure a person’s emotional reactivity both in the brain and in the rest of the body AND you can see brain activity in the frontal cortex etc., but these do not amount to subjective experience. If a person says that they enjoyed the full moon rising high in the sky, you have to take them at their word. There is no scientific evidence that you can show this to be true.
Subjective experience takes in consciousness and the act of experiencing, which is personal. There is no experiment that you can do to verify that they enjoyed seeing the full moon in the sky etc.
You asked also Why does it require a non-physical reality? Sorry I haven’t mastered the quotes yet.
If you have two entangled particles at an infinite distance apart, then short of the magical particles some physicists come up with that they suppose have infinite speed and zero mass, there is no way the two can interact on the physical plane. The only reasonable way to explain decoherence is if the two particles, which cannot be defined separately when entangled, share a common information set. This has to be a non-physical reality.
I am not alone here in seeing a non-physical or abstract reality. Dr. Roger Penrose a very highly respected mathematician at Oxford also believes in an abstract reality BUT only for mathematics. He is an atheist BTW.
The only information they share in coherent entanglement is indeterminate. The instant of observation for one of the pair determines the spin of the other but that cannot be communicated to the other’s location except at lightspeed, they are two entirely separate events. What’s not physical about that? Reasonability is irrelevant to reason.
If the particles are at an infinite or at least extremely large distance apart, then how can observation of one particle instantly the property, spin or whatever of the other particle? If they are separate events and there is no communication how can one particle being observed have any relevance to the other particle?
There is no answer to that. As in there never has been and never will be. So what? What’s non-physical about that fact?
If one is to consider a non-physical reality, the realm of information, then there is an answer.
Information is physical.
There are a lot of scientists trying to make that claim. But one English mathematician, highly acclaimed Dr. Roger Penrose PhD believes there is an abstract reality, non-physical… ah but only for mathematics. He is an atheist BTW.
That may already be taking place. But rather than citing scripture some may be taking responsibility for the conclusions they’ve drawn from the understandings and values they’ve drawn from reading the Bible. If one humbly owns his own conclusions as the best one can do, there is no need to represent them as God’s own. I believe this is essentially what @Christy has been saying to you of late.
1 Like
Evidence?
Or information travels instantaneously . . . or the universe splits into two versions for each interaction . . . or the universe is deterministc. There are plenty of other explanations.
There is no experiment that any scientist can do, measure bodily reactivity or brain activity or whatever, that can show evidence that you enjoyed the company of your friend. Or that I enjoyed the company of my friend and so on for everyone else. There is no evidence for subjective experience. We all know it for ourselves. It is self-evident. There is no objective evidence.